[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 17 Sep 2005
Time: 09:28:30 PM
Jean, ……It tells me that the prosecution and the defense wanted this debate. ……You don’t fake anything by making it obvious to anyone who looks at it closely that it has anomalies. You looked at the date (a national holiday) and saw an anomaly that would have been obvious to anyone familiar with the holiday. The copy of the bill you mailed to me had so many anomalies that it looked like an obvious fake – to anyone who hadn’t see identical distortions on legitimate documents. If I could find a copy of an old Ford pay scale record I saved for my lawsuit I would send it to you to compare with the telephone bill. That’s the only way you can see for yourself what I mean. But it won’t mean anything to anyone else because they have only my word for it that I saw the original and it didn’t have those distortions. …….In High Points you can click on the portion of my March MCI phone bill that shows my conversations with Bill Wasz and Mario. Examine it closely and you will see that the start and end time for one conversation do not match the duration of that call recorded on another line. If I copied that copy on an old Xerox copier and then made another copy of from the copy you would get skewed lines and character deformations. Some characters would be incomplete or unreadable. I would draw them in so you could read them. Putting all of these things together, the document would appear to be faked unless you were certain that it wasn’t. …….Prien is, of course, right about the phone bills shown in court not being legal records. My take on the whole issue centers on what the defense attorneys did about them. They accepted them. They challenged the blood evidence. They challenged the shoes, the cap and the hair. They challenged the spouse abuse witnesses, the police investigators and all of the prosecution’s timeline witnesses in the smallest details. Yet they did not challenge the documents purporting to show when Juditha Brown talked to Karen Crawford at Mezzaluna and when she talked to her daughter Nicole. Why not? ……..Because they wanted to create reasonable doubt about the timeline. They never even mentioned their preliminary trial stipulation that there was another Juditha Brown phone bill showing talked Juditha’s phone conversation with Nicole between 10:17 and 10:28 was accurate (whether or not the document was an official record). ………..If O.J. had lost the criminal case, that document would have served them well on appeal. If they had used it, the prosecution could have shifted their timeline just as Dan Petrocelli did. Do you honestly believe that the plaintiffs would have done that if there weren’t records the defense could produce to prove Nicole was alive at 10:28? ………The criminal defense team worked as hard to confuse the timeline as the prosecution did. A “questionable” set of time documents helped them do it. –Jasper